JUDGMENT LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J. 1. By the present writ application the petitioners have challenged and orders contained in Annexure 2, 3 and 4 passed in a proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to their case, they purchased, under several sale deeds, on 25.3.1974 land which are detailed in Paragraph 8 of the writ application and paid rent to the State of Bihar, respondent No.1 and were granted receipts. They had no information of Land Ceiling Case No. 176 of 1973-74 in which the impugned orders have been passed, which had been started against one Smt. Kamlawati Devi and were later informed that the lands which they had purchased in 1974 were included in the Ceiling case on the assumption that they belonged to the lady. They have given a genealogical table in paragraph 2 of the writ application giving the relationship of their vendor Shyam Bihari Lal and Smt. Kamlawati Devi. It appears that one Tribhuwan Lal had two sons Madhusudan Lal and Akhauri Maheshwari Lal Sinha. Madhusudan Lal died leaving behind his son Shyam Bihari Lal, the vendor of the petitioner as his heir and Akhauri Maheshwari Lal Sinha died leaving behind his son Gopal Krishna Sinha. Gopal Krishna Sinha died on 5.5.1970 leaving behind his widow Kamlawati Devi, a son and five daughters. It is further mentioned that Shyam Bihari Lal also died on 23.1.1975 leaving behind a large number of children, several of whom were major before 1970. 2. It is not denied that the ceiling case had been commenced in the year 1973 against Kamlawati Devi alone. Shyam Bihari Lal or his major children were neither shown as parties nor were any notices served on them. No objection was filed by Kamlawati Devi and Shyam Bihari Lal and his children also could not and did not file any objection in absence of any notice. A verification report was submitted in the case in which it was mentioned that there were two raiyats in regard to the lands in the proceeding, namely, Kamlawati Devi and Shyam Bihari Lai. It has been asserted, in the writ application that in the Demand Register II, both Shyam Bihari Lal and Gopal Krishna Sinha, husband of Kamlawati Devi were mentioned. It has been asserted, in the writ application that in the Demand Register II, both Shyam Bihari Lal and Gopal Krishna Sinha, husband of Kamlawati Devi were mentioned. A draft statement under section 10 of the Act, was prepared on the assumption that Kamlawati Devi was the sole land holder and entitled to a single unit. The petitioners at this stage learnt about the case and they appeared and made their claim. By order dated 5.3.1976 an inquiry under section 5 (i) (iii) of the Act, was directed to be held. The Additional S.D.O. Grahwa, respondent No.4, held by his order (Annexure 2) that since the petitioners had purchased the disputed lands in 1974 without the permission of the Collector, the transfers must be held to have been affected for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the ceiling law and were void and illegal. The petitioners' objections were rejected. The final statement was directed to be prepared and published under section 11 of the Act. The petitioners appeared but the respondent No. 3 confirmed the order bf his decision in Annexure 3. The petitioners unsuccessfully moved the Board of Revenue. The order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, is Annexure 4 to the writ application. 3. The impugned orders have been passed in an inquiry proceeding under section 5 (i) (iii) of the Act, and tile Additional S.D.O. in a summary way mentioned in Annexure 2 that as the transfers have been made in the year 1974 without the permission of the Collector, they must be held to have been made with the sole purpose of defeating the provisions of the Ceiling Ace. No reason for coming to such a conclusion has been given at all. The provisions of Section 5 (i) (iii) of the Act, are in tile following terms. "5. No person to hold in excess of the ceiling area (i)-(iii). No reason for coming to such a conclusion has been given at all. The provisions of Section 5 (i) (iii) of the Act, are in tile following terms. "5. No person to hold in excess of the ceiling area (i)-(iii). The Collector shall have power to make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a Land bolder whether made by a registered instrument or otherwise, made after the 22nd day of October 1959, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made, with the object of defeating, or in contravention of the provisions of this Act, or for retaining, benami or farzi, land in excess of the Ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard, annul such transfer and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be held by the transfer for the purposes of determining the ceiling area be may bold under this section." The provisions do not apply to a land holder who before effecting a transfer did not have land in excess of the ceiling area. They are applicable to only such cases where the total area of land held by a land holder including a transferred area exceeds the ceiling area. It was, therefore, essential for the authorities concerned to nave considered the question as to whether the vendor of the petitioners, namely, Shyam Bihari Lal held the land in excess to the ceiling area before transfer. No finding has been recorded on the question in Annexure 2. From the judgment of the Additional Collector in Annexure 3, it appears that the question was pointedly raised by the petitioners but the learned Collector disposed of the point by saying that this was a question which had to be raised by Shyam Bihari Lal himself and he was not appearing in the proceeding. The learned Collector also said that the question involved decision on the title of Shyam Bihari Lal and as the ceiling case is not concerned with the adjudication of title of co-sharers, it was not necessary to decide the point. It has also been held that there is no mention of Shyam Bihari Lal in the revenue records maintained by the State and as be has not come forward to claim the land, it should be presumed that the entire land belonged to Kamlawati Devi. It has also been held that there is no mention of Shyam Bihari Lal in the revenue records maintained by the State and as be has not come forward to claim the land, it should be presumed that the entire land belonged to Kamlawati Devi. All the aforesaid three reasons are completely misconceived in law. The petitioners were fully entitled to raise the question, as to whether Shyam Bihari Lal was a land holder and held lands, before the transfers, within the ceiling area and they could not be deprived of this right for the simple reason that their vendor did not feel interested after patting with the land to come and contest the ceiling area. Since the question was vital one for the application of section 5 (i) (iii) of the Act, the revenue authorities bad to decide the matter before passing any orders in the case. So far as the observation that Shyam Bihari Lal is not mentioned as a land holder in the records is concerned, it has been asserted in the Writ application that it is a serious error of record. In paragraph 4 of the writ application, it has been mentioned that in the Demand Register II Shyam Bihari Lal is mentioned as one of the raiyats. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the fact that the demand was running in the name of Shyam Bihari Lal as one of the raiyats has been admitted. That being the position, it must be held that the family constituted by the descendants of Tribhuwan Lal was entitled to more than one unit and the assumption that the case could be decided by presuming that only one unit In favour or Kamlawati Devi should be allowed is erroneous. The Member, Board of Revenue also dismissed the revision application without appreciating these points. It must, therefore, be held that the orders as contained in the impugned orders are illegal. 4. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ application is allowed and the orders in Annexure 2 (so far it affects the petitioners) and Annexure 3 and 4 are quashed The matter is remanded to the Additional S.D.O. Garhwa (Respondent No.4) for disposal of the proceeding under section 5 (i) (iii) of the Act, afresh in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. I agree. Application allowed.